Abstract

ABSTRACTIn this article, I examine the public testimonies of expert witnesses during a Canadian federal commission charged with investigating the reasons for dramatic declines of sockeye salmon returning to British Columbia's Fraser River in 2009. These testimonies were intended to provide a foundation of expert opinion upon which clear policy recommendations could be made. However, the hearings were beset by debates over the ability of scientific research to assess harms to wild salmon. Through a discursive analysis of knowledge performances during the commission's hearings, I argue that neoliberalized approaches to evaluating harm and risk enable the production of uncertainty as a political strategy for blocking regulation and letting markets solve ecological crises. Furthermore, my analysis of expert testimonies underscores the degree to which public discussions of science and ecological crises are about the performance of (non)knowledge and why more scientific information has little impact on their outcomes. [uncertainty, risk, ignorance, science, salmon]

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call